Now you're talking utter bollucks. Are you trying to be different because... well because you can?
Windows may not be perfect, Fords may not be perfect, but get with it, neither is anything like as bad as you make out.
You're not doing that image any favours though. ;)
That it may be. I'm likely to find out before too long.
You need to define perfection.
Amiga WorkBench was lightyears in front of just about anything else in its day.
PalmOS 4.x is still far more stable than any desktop operating system I've used.
I think you've hit it on the nail there. For every advantage of one there's a disadvantage.
I still want to run a Mac for some time just to see what all the fuss is about. Using one for a week at the office isn't the same as running one for a few weeks or months.
Charlies used to rate the iMac because that's what she used, but now, reckons there's nothing between them apart from relatively expensive hardware prices on the Mac side just because one can get some really, really cheap Windows boxes.
Maybe. I see advantages and disadvantages for both. Unfortunately the smug-factor doesn't help the Mac's case.
But I still want a Mac Mini.
It's the A/UX, isn't it. Always seems to worry people, that one...
Just be thankful I don't have every machine I ever owned, I could drag BeOS into this. ;)
Richard (I miss my BeBox...)
Erm, no. She wouldn't.
Which is all the more reason for them to avoid Windows like the plague.
Look. It's not perfect, it's just one hell of a lot less imperfect than the alternatives.
FWIW, if Amiga OS had been properly developed, it would have blown everything away.
Would you like to qualify that, telling us what criteria are needed for perfection, and how MacOS is a lot better than the others?
She couldn't. Richard said that Mac users aren't stupid enough to fall for a blatant trojan. Do they test IQ at the point of the purchase? Do you have to pass the iQ test? :)
Blimey, you managed to take half a day off work to get an MCSE?
Heh. Ok. Some Mac users may be stupid enough to fall for a blatant trojan.
It's hard to quantify, other than to say it's unbelievably stable, needs little or no maintenance (what's a defrag?), is secure out of the box and is intuitive to use.
Even thought I pretty much know what I'm doing, I still find Windows networking to be a PITA, especially WiFi.... with the Mac, it automatically discovers wireless networks and lets me join them without any intervention other than clicking 'yes, I do want to join that network'. Contrast that to the 20-odd minutes of fiddling it took to persuade my mother-in-law's WinXp laptop to join my WiFi network, and the 30 mins of phone support needed from me to get it back on her WiFi network at home.
That's just one example of why Windows is s**te - before I've even started on how easy the i-apps make things.
You have observed the internal procedures of these two companies? The next two points don't confirm anything of the sort.
Why are you applying different criteria to the two OSs?
Well, how much of an IQ do you need to know that a JPG image shouldn't come up asking for an administrator password?
Richard
They would have told all Mac users (iDudes) that viruses are good. You know, like the Intel u-turn. :)
Yup, my ftp / web / print / file server is a tray loading iMac running
10.3.9 - mainly because 10.4 comes on DVD. Yes, I don't install updates either, for exactly the same reason. Just looked at the uptime on it, but it's only 27 days because I shut it down when we went on holiday.I think that's why my Virtual PC got hit.
Nah. Half the battle for GUI dominance is making it intuitive and pretty. Workbench was clever, but it was really ugly. It was also marginally less stable than MultiTOS at similar ages, though by the time MultiTOS came out, Workbench was better (but still butt-ugly).
I've always maintained that the Amiga SHOULD have been SGI before SGI happened. But, not polished sufficiently for a mass-market OS.
*gets the can opener and tins of worms*Richard
Er, they are Linux boxes as well. Get one, install Ubuntu, and report back please. :D
hmmm. wonder how long before I can get OSX running in a virtual PC.
I don't think Windows - not necessarily normal Windows, but the rabid anti-Mac-types - users really grasp this. Maybe they just don't realise how unintrusive to the computing experience Mac OS X really is.
I've only really encountered issues with Win 2K, and that's been due to different card configuration paradigms. I've never had a problem with Windows networking in getting it to connect, and it talks happily to my Macs via Samba - though you have to set up shares first, which is an extra step (but one that should be there, compared to sharing Macs to Windows where the standard desktop OS (haven't used X Server) requires a simple, but nevertheless 'editing a cofig file' tweak to Samba's config to share anything other than the home directory.
The flipside to this is that Mac to Mac networking is nearly always exemplary, and I can share files between ancient and modern Macs, and even my Apple II via a System 7 system - the Apple II (not IIgs, but II) can even see the OS X machines when it wants to netboot.
Richard
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.